Above all, think!

 Maharaj (Hindi; 2024)
Director: Siddharth P. Malhotra

There was no big hoopla to announce the arrival of one of Bollywood star's son, Aamir Khan's Junaid Khan, to the silver screen. The film, however, had to be cleared by the courts for allegedly hurting Hindu sentiments before making a quiet screening on Netflix. From the get-go, people started demonstrating in front of Netflix HQ in the USA, accusing them of defaming Lord Krishna. Many of the demonstrators had not even viewed the show. Still, they demonstrated anyway, seeing the OTT platform, as in previous instances, had repeatedly been releasing movies that tend to ridicule or put Sanatha Dharma in a bad light. In their eyes, Hindus were like dodos, easy prey for target practice. For instance, no one would dare make a movie that even gives a hint of ridicule or as much questions Islamic figures or practices using modern-day yardstick. It is an unwritten rule that Islamic bodies had to give their nod before such a story hits the filming process. 

The whole story is based on an 1862 Bombay High Court case. In this case, a social reformer and journalist, Karsandas Mulji, and Nanabhai Rustomji Ranina, a newspaperman, were served a libel suit by Jadunathjer Barjratanjee Maharaj. The Maharaj alleges that the duo defamed himself and his religious practice and brought shame to the age-old religious practices of his Hindu sect, the Pushimarg of Vallabha Sampradaya. 

Vallabha set up the sect in the 1600s when he had a vision he was a reincarnation of Krishna. He set up a centre that grew big thanks to the contributions of various business communities and Vaishvanite Hindus. After Vallabha's demise, his descendants took over. The heir would be known as Maharaj. Karnadas' assertion was that the sect had deviated from traditional Vedic teaching. Its leader had abused his position by getting sexual favours from his devotees. 

The court case exposed the ignorance of his devotees. Many could not tell whether Maharaj was a guru (guide) or God himself. They blindly followed the herd in the name of devotion and service to the Almighty. This included sending their wives and teenage daughters for Maharaj's sexual gratification. It was also revealed that the guru was afflicted with syphilis. 

The case was presided over by two judges. Chief Justice Matthew Sausse, the senior of the two, overruled the other's decision to find Karsandas guilty of libel as private matters need not be publicised in public space and fined him 5 rupees. On the other hand, he affirmed that the sect was heterodox and deviant. Its songs in praise of Krishna, sung by young girls, were construed as amorous and sung by 16,000 gopis. Karsandas Mulji was awarded cost. 

This trial was a watershed case for India's social reforms and press freedom. 

Karsandas Mulji

The movie takes the liberty to masalafy the background of Karsandas, giving him a youthful look with a modern haircut. The level of drama is hyped with a dance number, a holi celebration with Karsandas love interest herself falling prey to the list of Maharaj. Melodrama reaches a point of no return when his lover subsequently commits suicide after Karsandas annulled their engagement after her seemingly wilful act of sex with the Maharaj in the name of divine service. 

This is not a documentary film. Hence, there was a need to spice up the characters and glamourise the narrative here and there. 

Yes, Modi had been reported to have sung praises of Mulji for his work in his newspaper, Satya Prakash, and his advocacy of women's rights and social reforms, particularly widow remarriage and the rights of the oppressed. So, people were surprised when a movie about him landed the producers in the courts. 

More than one and a half centuries after the trial, we find ourselves in the same boat as the members of the Pustimarg sect. We are easily cowed into submission when the name of the Divine is mentioned. It has become a dog whistle for the believers to toe the line. Questions cannot be raised as they are considered heretical. Just following, not asking questions, is the way to go. Like the children of Hamelin, we seem to be intoxicated to the tune of the Piped Piper's flute. 

https://enfolding.org/krishna-in-the-dock-the-1862-maharaja-libel-case-and-its-consequences-i/

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

google.com, pub-8936739298367050, DIRECT, f08c47fec0942fa0

A case for abolition of jury system!

American Crime Story (Season 1; 2016)

The People v. O. J. Simpson

A 64-year-old man was imprisoned for a year after being caught stealing ten cans of sardines, two bottles of instant coffee powder, and some mouthwash. He was punished with a month's imprisonment.

In the justice system, an individual trusted with the coffers of the nation and its future, accused of amassing RM 42 million for his own needs, gets 12 years in prison. This happened after much public pressure, demonstrations, democratic change of government and taxpayers coughing out more money to finance what turned out to be a non-ending series of trials-within-trials. Because the ex-PM has all the money that can buy justice and legal minds, there is a high possibility that he will end up spending the rest of his royal-pardoned six years under house arrest, in the comfort of his loved ones and window to the outside world. That is the best justice system that money and influence can buy.

This is by no means confined to the third world or despotic governments. It is a worldwide phenomenon.

When the Malaysian courts discontinued the jury trial system in 1995, the naive me thought it was a step backwards for justice. After all, more impartiality is displayed when more people collectively decide, and developed countries, particularly the US, still use jury services. So they must be right, I thought.

The sensational trial of Mona Fandey et al. gruesomely murdering a state assemblyman created such mayhem that the courts thought that trial by jury should be abolished.

The merits and demerits have been in the legal fraternity's imagination for years. In India, the famous 1959 case of a naval officer, Nanavati, murdering his wife's lover created such a storm that the legal system felt the sensationalism surrounding the trial made the juries err on their judgement. The Bombay High Court later reversed the jury's decision of freeing him to impose life imprisonment.

The opponents of the jury system argue that the law is too complex for an average person to comprehend, who may also be swayed by emotion, prejudices and sentiments.

In this time and age, with the bane of knowledge and information, we humans are more confused than ever. Like in the immortalised lines from the movie 'A Few Good Men', the real question is, 'Can you handle the truth?'. With so much information, emotion, biases, innate bigotry and prejudices bottled up within us, how unflinching can be towards the real truth?

This proposition is laid bare in the case People of the Stae of California v. O. J. Simpson, which took place when the American sports icon, Simpson, was accused of murdering his ex-wife, Nicole Smith, and her companion, Ron Goldman.

Cuba Gooding Jr as OJ, David Schwimmer as
Robert Kardashian, John Travolta as
Robert Shapiro. 

On the one hand, a black football player who beat the odds with his rags-to-riches story to be super rich, marry a white girl and live in a posh white, exclusive neighbourhood in LA. Some also looked at OJ as Uncle Tom, who had become a white, not as a black man. On the other hand, Nicole has reported domestic abuse in the relationship. When a blood-stained glove with OJ's and both victims' blood was found in the vicinity of the murder, the prosecution went all ballistic to charge him with double murder. They were clear in their approach. It was a case of domestic violence gone overboard.

From the get-go, the defence took a racial slunt towards the case. At a time in America when the police (like now) had the dubious reputation of being overtly racist in the way they handled their affairs. The Rodney King killing and the LA riots were They went along with the idea that the pieces of evidence were planted by bigoted police officers. To top it the lead defence lawyer, John Cochrane, drew in the support of the NAACP (North American Association for the Advancement of Coloured People, founded 1909). The defence tried to recruit as many black jurors as they could. In their mind, even though Simpson had turned into an Uncle Tom-like character with a white wife, country club and all, he was framed because he was black. That is where the defence was looking for sympathy.

With the fueling of fire by the extensive media, the trial became a competition between the whites and blacks of America. The whole trial became a media circus. First, it starts with Simpson engaging in a low-speed police car chase. Then, the trial was televised on Court TV, making people hooked on the twists and turns the case took. By the end of the nine months of trial, people were waiting outside the courthouse with bated breath to hear the jury decision. The jury took less than 4 hours to deliberate. Even though it provided a sound argument backed by scientific data, it was not enough. Simpson had apparently built a fan base among the jurors. They also voted along racial lines. The verdict would have been different if the jury was predominately white. The trial of the century ended with O. J. Simpson walking out a free man. A poll suggested almost 75% of white respondents believed OJ was guilty, whilst about only 25% of blacks thought he was guilty.

What is this about OJ's defence team being a dream team? I suppose it must be a group of morally corrupt individuals who mask themselves behind a law degree, unscrupulously stir sentiments, and churn out uncertainties in investigations and technicalities to create that element of reasonable doubt to crush the conviction. They promise the stars and the moon and charge an arm and a leg.

Robert Kardashian, the estranged husband of Kris Jenner (of the ''Keeping Up with the Kardashians' fame), was on the dream team. As a close friend and an attorney, he completed the whole trial convinced he was defending a guilty guy. To add fuel to the fire, 13 years after his acquittal in 2007, OJ was charged and later imprisoned for 33 years for armed robbery with a mostly white jury. So much for a fair trial and the adage that everyone is innocent until proven guilty.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Money can buy justice, or at least freedom!

Trial by Fire (2023, Miniseries)
Netflix

A management professor once told a joke about the Indian justice system. An 80-year-old man appeared for a molestation charge. After looking at the charge sheet, the judge queried, "you are accused of molesting a 16-year-old girl. Why? At this age..." The octagenarian replied, "Sir, I was also 16 when it happened!"

That is how long it takes the cogwheel of justice moves. It is not an Indian problem but a worldwide phenomenon. Part of the law school syllabus must be a paper on creative ways to dodge a trial and get away with it.

People enter a movie hall thinking they will be transported to a world of make-believe and forget real life's stresses for the next two hours or so. What audience who flocked to Uphaar cinema hall in Delhi on June 13th 1997, was far from it. They ended up struggling to stay alive when a transformer exploded. 59 people succumbed to smoke inhalation.

The general public patronises various public venues thinking that the licensing bodies and the enforcement units will do their part in ensuring safety for the general public. Victims of the fire also realised the hard way that all the while, the public has been short-changed. The businesses had been trying to maximise profits over safety. The local councils have been sleeping on their jobs as well. The question begs whether they deliberately looked the other way after their palms were greased.

Illegal extensions, indiscriminately increasing seats, and the erection of private viewing terraces only blocked exits. The doors were locked and bolted to discourage illicit entrees into halls, trapping and smoking the desperately trapped patrons to their deaths.

When the push came to the shove, even emergency response teams failed them. Their snail-paced lethargic swing to action was much to desired at a time when the public is aware of their rights is embarrassing.

Even the long arm of the law and cogwheel of the system appears to be dragging its feet. After 25 years, the parents of two teenage fire victims, Neelam and Sekhar Krishnamoorthy, are yet to see justice to be meted out to the owners of the ill-fated cinema hall. They, together with other relatives who had lost their loved ones in the fire, had taken a civil suit against the owners for negligence. They allege that they had neglected the safety of their clients.

The owners, big shots in Delhi, who had a hand in all development projects, are said to be big philanthropists with big community projects under their belts that seem untouchable. They are able to engage big-wig lawyers, and even the judges appear to feed off their hands. Delays and postponements are norms. Even the lawyer assigned to the defence by the Central Bureau of Investigation looked disinterested and needed prodding and feeding of information to proceed with the case.

Neelam and Sekhar, who wrote a book about their whole ordeal, had embarked on extensive TV interviews highlighting fire safety in public places. In one of such interviews, Neelam, out of sheer frustration, had blurted that she should have just taken a gun, shot the cinema owners and claim insanity rather than having faith in the legal system that seem skewed to protect the rich and famous. The rest of the population can just be taken for a ride with the false pretence that justice will prevail. In reality, money can buy justice or at least freedom.

This work is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International. 

Between the right and the just thing to do!

Sleepers (1996)
Director: Barry Levinson

Sometimes when I see how some cases are persecuted in this country, I wonder if they are some kind of arrangements between the prosecutors and defence so that the rich and famous stay immune from conviction. One does not have to look far to know the many cases that raise suspicion. Even the executive branch of the government does not mind appearing incompetent just to fulfil specific preset political agendas. All of it reminds me of a grand freak show put up by the powers-that-be for self-aggrandisement and stupefying the citizens at their own expense. Every day is a constant reminder of the 'you reap what you saw' adage. Yet 70 years of rule by a single party has created a kind of Stockholm Syndrome that people admire the very leaders that cheat them blind!

This 1996 film is based on Lorenzo Carcaterra's book. The author insists that the story is based on actual events, with the name of characters and places altered to protect the identity of the accused and victims. Despite extensive scrutiny into the records of similar cases that made it to the US Courts, nobody found any remotely resembling the story in this film. It features a lineup of many familiar faces, including Robert Ne Niro, Dustin Hoffman, Kevin Bacon and Brad Pitt.

In 1968, four boys living in Hell's Kitchen, a poor Irish-American neighbourhood in Manhattan, get into a reform school when their prank goes wrong, and they end up seriously injuring a man. During their 18-month incarceration in the school, they had to endure many life-changing physical, psychological and sexual abuses from the guards. Even though they did not report the crimes, they vowed to avenge later when the time was ripe.

The time came in 1981. Two of the four boys are now hard criminals, one an Assistant Public Prosecutor and another a journalist. One day, the criminals sighted one of the guards in a restaurant. They shoot him in cold blood.

When their case comes up in court, the prosecutor and journalist devise an elaborate plan to expose the rot in the correctional school system. The sweet smell of revenge came with a price, and it involved a priest lying under oath. The priest had to weigh between staying true to his profession as an upholder of truth and telling a white lie to uncover massive wrongdoings.

(PS. In Malaysia, in the mind of many of our holy men, the answer to the dilemma is quite a clear cut. Religion takes precedence over everything else. Doing the morally conscientious thing with humanity or upholding the truth does not arise. It is always about protecting the flock. Higher thinking is just too mentally challenging!)

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Any news is good news?

Trial by Media (6-episodes, Documentary; 2020)
Netflix

There was a time when jury members were told to abstain from consuming news from the newspaper, radio or TV to not influence their decisions. These days, however, this is no longer possible. One does not consume news; news consumes you. One can run, but he cannot hide; information finds you through every crack of the system; smart devices being the easiest.

Just look at how everyone has an opinion on how Covid should be managed. Everybody is cocksure where it came from, which drugs are effective and how effective vaccinations are. 

In the post-truth world, it seems that every individual forms an opinion on everything based on the validation they get online. Birds of the same feather flock together to steamroll their agenda. We can see how particular narratives are just gate-crashed, no matter the actual situation at the ground level. The confusing situation in Afghanistan that the country is left in is testimony to this. Then there is the ever confusing ground situation in India, a country surrounded by vultures waiting to pounce upon and destroy the biggest democracy of the world.

Jonathan Schmitz

This six-episode documentary tries to determine how media, the mainstream media, influences public opinion, perhaps the judicial system and its verdicts. At the end of all shows, viewers do not get answers to this, but they do get a rough idea of how media uses these cases to stir interest amongst the people. In some cases, the accused used the media to portray his squeaky clean image of themselves. The press has also moved into the courts via Court TV. 

The first episode is about the unscrupulous nature of TV, specifically Trash TV. Programmes like 'The Jerry Springer Show', 'Jeremy Kyle', 'Keeping up with the Kardashians' will be a few examples of these. In 1995, during 'The Jenny Jones Show', a neighbour, Scott Amedure, expressed his gay crush to Jonathan Schmitz. Jonathan had thought that another neighbour, a lady who invited him to the show, was going to confess her love. The whole faux pas was quite embarrassing to Jonathan. He took it in good spirits at that time, but Jonathan shot him dead with a shotgun the next day. 

Jonathan was charged and convicted for second-degree murder, and, guess what, the whole court debacle was screened live on 'Court TV'. Coincidentally, or perhaps not coincidentally, both 'Court TV' shows and 'The Jenny Jones Show' were owned by the parent company, Warner Brothers (WB). So WB had it good both ways, benefiting from the murder and filming the trial as well.

The victim's family, the Amedure, decided to sue the TV producers for recklessness and negligence. However, the TV company got away scot-free after an appeal to the grieving family's initial compensation award.

Bernard Goetz

The following case piqued the interest of the Nation again. In 1984, in the notorious crime-rich New York, a subway commuter, Bernard Goetz, shot four black boys in a subway rail. The shooter alleged it was in self-defence after being mugged. That incident sparked fueled a nationwide debate about safety on the streets of New York and other US cities generally. Goetz's case started vigilante groups that patrolled the streets to prevent urban crimes. The question of legal limits of self-defence was discussed. Is it alright to shoot once or twice to protect oneself? The NRA then worked on loosening gun laws in New York for protection. A quadriplegic victim even pressed a civil suit against Goetz for damages and was awarded $43million. Goetz was declared bankrupt.

Crime in New York saw a decline in the 1990s with new mayors and massive cleaning of the police department. It did come at a cost. Stringent policing meant there were that there was the occasional collateral damage. 

Amadou Diallo

In 1999, an African immigrant, a 23-year-old Guinean named Amadou Diallo, was shot 41 times by four New York plainclothes policemen in The Bronx. He was unarmed, with no criminal record and had come to the USA to taste a little bite at the Big Apple. Sadly he was shot down like a rabid dog. This spurred the talk of racial profiling and discrimination. Diallo's mother flew down and, together with civil rights icons like Al Sharpton, kicked up a big storm to seek justice. Sadly, nothing happened. The trial was held at a primarily different white county and mostly white juries to acquit the accused. 

Richard Scrushy

Richard Scrushy developed a world-class healthcare company from scratch in the backwaters of Birmingham, Alabama and made it to the Fortune 500. Before long, he was accused of money laundering, racketeering, money laundering, etcetera. About this time, he started an evangelical TV and went into a full religious mode. Interestingly he was active in the black Church. It is said his idea was to influence the local papers and juries to return a favourable result in his complicated and retracted court cases.

The following case is another new milestone for the media. It was the first time a rape trial was televised. Even though they had made some ground rules on maintaining the victim's anonymity and the sensitivities of the times, all hell broke loose when it came to execution. The victim's name was mentioned in full when the charge sheet was read, making the camera hound down at the victim's family home. In 1983, Cheryl Araujo, 21, a mother of two, stopped at a local bar in New Bedford, Massachusetts, to buy a pack of cigarettes when she was raped by four and witnessed by others who never stopped the crime.

The case began a national debate. As the accused were of Portuguese immigrants, there was an enormous backlash to the established fishing community of Portuguese descent. They were charged with harbouring illegal immigrants. The victim was also put on trial by the media. Her behaviour and morals were questioned. Victim blaming was apparent. It challenged the place of media in protecting personal privacy, finding newsworthiness and press freedom. The accused spent time in prison. The whole humiliation left Aroujo a wreck. She left for Miami but died at the age of 25 in a motor vehicle accident.

Rod Blagojevich

Rod Blagojevich is a second-generation Yugoslavian who climbed swiftly, with the support of his wife's political family background, to become Illinois Governor in 2002. Soon into the second reelection, he was accused of selling a Senate seat. He was impeached and was indicted by a federal grand jury. All through in between his trials and appeals, he was appearing on TV, expressing his views and basically leading the public perception in his favour. Even after his indictment, he pleaded his case on Fox TV. Surprise, surprise, Fox TV, which is said to be a Republic Party mouthpiece, tweaked the interest of President Trump to offer a Presidential pardon. Coincidentally, before Blagojevich's appointment to Governorship, he had appeared in Trump's 'The Apprentice'. It goes without saying that it is nice to have friends in high places, and it is invaluable to have the media on your side, especially when you are in trouble.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Convincing enough for a conviction?

The Staircase (Documentary, 13 episodes; 2018)
Netflix

No, the truth does not somehow mysteriously appears out of thin air and settles the score. Often, the perpetrator goes scot-free. It is not unusual for fall guys to carry the burden. Innocent bystanders who happened to be at the wrong place at the wrong time sometimes get suckered in. Tonnes of news of the incarcerated getting reprieve with newer modern scientific revelations, e.g. when DNA evidence comes to fore, is evidence of this. Truth does not manifest on its own. We have to make it appear. At the end of the day, the determinant is money. With ever-increasing legal fees and protracted trials that last forever, proving innocence is the domain of the well-heeled. The impoverished are just left to the spiralling uncertainty of time and divine intervention. 

It is a game of poker. It is a question of how long can one hold his card. Court cases can run till the money runs out or the accused is out of breath, metaphorically and biologically. Anyway, at the end of it all, the court does not give a bill of innocence. It merely states that the accused is 'not guilty' when it acquits someone. It does not say 'innocent'. It is saying, "damn, you managed to defend yourselves with good legal representation that money can buy. It is no match against our prosecutors and the evidence that the State had collected!" Justice does not fall in the equation.

'The Staircase' is a documentary presentation of the trial of a fiction writer, Michael Peterson. The Durham, North Carolina 911 helpline, in December 2001, received a call from a near-hysterical Michael asking for help after his wife's apparent fall of the stairs. A week later, Michael is charged for the murder of his wife, Kathleen. Kathleen had broken thyroid cartilage but died primarily of blood loss from seven laceration wounds on her scalp.

Citing disproportionate blood loss for a simple fall from stairs and the unaccountable scalp wounds moved the prosecutor to charge Michael for murder. Then the bag of worms came out. Michael's desktop hard drive showed him entertaining gay porn sites and liaison with a particular gay prostitute. The prosecutor surmised that the discovery's of Michael's sexuality probably inspired an argument, and in the heat of emotions, Michael could have struck Kathleen on the head and subsequent fall. 

Michael, an ex-Marine, was once stationed in Germany. He was married with two kids then. His neighbour, Elizabeth, an American and a close family friend, also died after falling off a flight of stairs. Even though her death was certified as an intracranial haemorrhage, her case was linked to somehow to Kathleen's. Elizabeth's body was excavated for re-autopsy, but nothing incriminating was found.

The trial went on and on. Michael's family was fragmented. On his side were his sons from his first marriage, his two adopted daughters (Elizabeth's daughters) and Patricia, his first wife. The deceased, Kathleen, was Michael's second wife.

Kathleen's sister and Kathleen's daughter, Caitlin, from her first wedding, were ferociously working with the prosecution to get a conviction for Michael after initially rooting for Michael!

The jury found Michael guilty and sentenced him to life imprisonment. After repeated appeals, 8 years into incarceration, Michael finally had his appeal heard. In an unrelated case, a vital defence witness who appeared in Michael's trial had falsified evidence. Michael was put on house arrest awaiting retrial. By then, money had run out for the lawyers. David Rudolf, who was doing an excellent job representing Michael, excused himself but later appeared pro bono.

In 2017, 16 years after the nightmare started, Michael Peterson finally took an Alford plea to voluntary manslaughter to end it all. He vehemently maintains his innocence till today, but on paper, he is guilty.

People are divided on Michael's guilt. The police have a bone to pick with him. As an editor in a local newspaper, Michael has often highlighted the police shortcomings and inefficiencies. 

Another theory that had been floating around is the 'rogue owl theory'. Batted owls are known inhabitants of the woods around Michael and Kathleen's habitat. Owls have been reported to attack people unprovoked. This could have happened to Kathleen. Feeling tipsy with wine and startled by an owl clutching her scalp, she could have run and tripped down the flight of stairs. The peculiar scalp laceration, extensive blood loss and absence of skull fracture and brain injury could be due to the talons of a barred owl. In retrospect, micro-feather fibre and bird feathers were found on the body.

The justice system is flawed. It metes different justice to different people. A starving person is imprisoned for stealing, whilst a politician who embezzled billions is still gallivanting around because he has not exhausted all the legal avenues available to prove his innocence. It should be read as he still has enough money to hire cunning legal eagles to look for a loophole in the system or get the bench members convinced with some kind of junk science or sly sleight of hand. Period.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.